tv [untitled] June 11, 2011 4:30pm-5:00pm PDT
tow, the eir said it would not be visually supportive to the library. this is not a fundamental project objective and is it is a simple matter of design -- and is a simple matter of design. the eir represents an unwelcome massive block. obviously drawn to massive hi. thank you. president chiu: -- >> any others? seeing none, this hearing is
closed. president chiuy? president chiu: i want to thank everyone for the many, many years of conversations we have had about the north beach library. regardless if you support it, you of helped to make a better one. i also want to thank everyone, including the planning office and dpw. the very first meeting i held after being elected was about a north beach library, and we have, a long way, but from my perspective, i think we need to move forward. the north beach library is one of the most use sites in the city, and from my perspective, the current library has been
inadequate, it picks -- in accessible, and seismically unsafe. we have been envious of you and all of the right -- ribbon cutting june and going to. we have the opportunity to build a bigger library and a bigger plaza. we all know it takes a village to raise the children, and i think it takes a village to raise our libraries. i think eir is adequate for what we want to do, and this point, i want to make a motion that we affirm this and table item 48. >> we have a motion on the
table. is there a second? seconded bypass supervisor elsbernd. comments? supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you. i will be supporting the motion and want to thank the president for his work over the years to get us to where we are today. the tortured history of this project is about the dysfunctional progress. to replace an outdated and inaccessible structure with a beautiful, usable, and accessible new library, to create much needed open space, any community would embraces
project. -- would embrace the project. in all due respect, a group has stymied the project. we have seen the broad support this has in the community. we have seen the p. unanimous support from the board, the planning commission, but, and for some, opposition has continued. i respect the opposition, but at some time, you come to the end of the road. we are at the end of the road, and it is time to move forward. i was disappointed to see that
this was attempted to be landmarked at the national level. this does not hamper our ability to move forward today, and it should not. this building is not working preserving of the risk of this amazing project, and i think the arguments we of heard around preservation do not advance the ball for historic preservation that we all support, protect and the best of our city's history, so i am supporting this motion and do so privately and hope you will as well, colleagues. >> the motion, again, is to
item 52, which is regarding the playground master plan, and mason street. can we take this item, same house, call? this ordinance is passed on the same reading. that includes the items with regard to the north beach library. we will in three weeks consider the final item regarding authorization of use of real property located there. and we will begin to mean that until july 28. what we not now go, collins, to the first 3:00 special order? . colleagues? -- colleagues? if we can go to the first 3:00 special order, items 43 and 44, and if i can ask the representative from dpw if you can please step up.
dpw is working with all those property owners on the case-by- case basis. president chiu: ok, so at this time, there is nothing for us to amend? and you recommend that the board can adopt the report today? >> that is correct. president chiu: ok. supervisor mar? supervisor mar: ok, i did want to ask about a number of people said that there was mural art work, and there was confusion was some of the inspectors with what is art and what is -- graffiti or blighted property. i know there are a number of community murals that some may see as graffiti, but it is really done by students or other artists that are in the community. >> murals that are sanctioned are not cited by the inspectors.
we did speak to one property owner who did have a mural, and we did say that if it was defaced and tag, it could be posted, and these that are sanctioned are not posted as graffiti. supervisor mar: what does it take for a property owner to get a mural listed? i would assume that many property owners do not know that process, and that there are some done by schools. the mission district has a great mural, but i do not know if it is registered, for example. >> there is a program called street smart, where they put property owners in touch with certified muralists and help pay for a least half of the cost on their problem property.
also, property owners and install a mural themselves, without going through the arts commission, simply provide a letter to us that it is sanctioned, permitted art. we put that on file, and it is no longer deemed graffiti. president chiu: any further questions, colleagues? again, my understanding is that we will incorporate that in the and documents for today's meeting. at this time, the hearing has been held and closed, and colleagues, and 44, could we take this item same house, same call? ok, this resolution is adopted. thank you. at this time, why do we not moved to the special order at
5:00 regarding treasure island? mr. clerk, could you please call items 53 and 54? clerk: -- president chiu: actually, mr. clerk, if you could call all of the items, which are not just items 65 to 59, but all of the items on the calendar? clerk: 55, a public hearing for the appeal of the final environmental impact report for treasure island/yerba abuena, 56, affirming the certification of the final environmental
impact report, a motion affirming, item 57, emotion or worse in the planning commission certification, item eight about chapter 31 in connection with the development of this note treasure island /yerba buena project. item 11 is an ordinance amending the zoning map to show the zoning designations. item 12 is an ordinance amending the code, which pertains to the subdivision process which goes to the project site, including the established procedure for reviewing the filings for transfer. item 13 is a resolution approving the implementation plan in adopting findings under ceqa. the following items were for the
land use and other with a recommendation. item 14 is a resolution approving a development agreement for certain real properties located there with an interagency agreement and adopting various findings. item 15 is an m.o. you for -- mou. item 16 is an assistance agreement for the homeless development initiative and adopting various findings. and item 17 is a resolution approving the public trust exchange agreement between the development authority and the california state lands commission. president chiu: ok, colleagues, today we have before us the final appeal of the proposed treasure island/yerba buena .
you all have copies. the procedure that we will proceed with debate, first, we will hear from the appellants who will have up to 15 minutes in total. we will then take public comment from individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the appellants. each speaker will left up to two counts to speak. we will then hear from the planning department who will have up to 15 minutes about the final eir. final the presentation, 50 minutes to present, and then we will hear from individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the parties of interest, the project sponsor. each speaker will have up to two minutes, and then finally, the appellate will have up to five minutes for rebuttal. colleagues, any objections or comments about proceeding in this way?
ok, i understand that the court reporter needs a few minutes to set up. do you know how long? colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, our court reporter needs a few minutes to set up, so we will recess for five minutes and start fresh at 6:00. [ >> welcome back to the 5:00 p.m. special order related to all of the items that have to deal with treasure island. before we proceed, let me ask the supervisors, are there any comments that you would like to make? why do we not proceed to the hearing? before we get started, i have received a letter with a number
of issues that had to deal with notice. we are going to allow the council to use three minutes to make any arguments they wish to make regarding notice. we will give the city attorneys office a moment to respond. i would ask if you could please approach the podium. you have three minutes for an initial comments. >> thank you, president and members of the board. i am with the wagner llp. i represent the appellants in this appeal. i have raised two issues with regard to notice. there is the ability to move forward on the merits. various committees of the board
have heard the substantive merits of the project. with regards to notice, on june 1, just six days ago and just four business days ago, we were provided with a staff report and other substantive materials in support of project approval and the eir in the form of responses to the appeal document here. the planning and zoning law requires a 10-day notice of substantive materials and information regarding any project that would amend a general plan of zoning. the relevant case is on the environmental defense project. also, under the california environmental quality act, commissioners will proceed with
any challenge by the board would normally be limited to only those issues that are raised before the close of the public hearing on the project. that provision also states that if be notice provided by law is god-given or an opportunity to organize or respond to stipe given, then in the issue is available for challenge. on those two issues, we request that the board deliberate and make a decision to continue the substance of this appeal hearing to a later date until notice is required. also on procedural issues come up we have raised a third objection. under the administrative code, the city administrative code provides that while an eir
appeal as a pending, the board will not consider the approval of the project. they certified the eir on the 21st. during the appeal period, we could -- hold hearings. our clients with than file a timely appeal. even after the appeal was filed, the board would continue. we would consider approval of the project. >> thank you very much. let me ask the city attorney if you could respond. >> i am at the city attorneys office. i will try to tackle these one at a time. i think the appellant has confused the noticing requirements under state law.
the notices are required. the purpose of those is to give the public an opportunity to show up at a hearing and testified. we gave a 10-day required notice for the general plan with many required amendments. in advance of the land use committee hearings on this item. by and not quite sure what the appellants' noticing issue is in regard to ceqa. we made the comments and responses document available at least 10 days before the planning commitments certification of that action. they may be referring to the planning department's response to the appeal that was filed on the eir. the planning department practice
is to at least a week before the hearing to submit a response to the issues that the appellant has raised. i think that was done on tuesday because of the memorial day holiday. it was in the clerk's file and was made available to the board members and the public. the last issue concerns chapter 31 and what can be done during the course of the 20-day appeal window and what can be done after an actual appeal has been followed. i think the appellants miexed up the requirements. chapter 1 is very clear that when an appeal is pending, when it has been filed, no further action can be taken. there were actions taken during the 20-day appeal period.
there were actions that were taken in advance of an appeal being followed. this occurs all of the time in san francisco. we did receive an appeal. it was properly filed. after that, i believe there was one of land use committee hearing. there is nothing that prohibits the conduct of public hearings or informational hearings that the appeal has been filed. the only limitation is that the body who is conducting the hearing cannot take any action on the item. i think the appellants directly stated that. there was no action taken yesterday. there was a hearing on the development agreement. there was no action taken on the land use agreement. we forward it to the full board without recommendation. that is just a procedural matter
to begin -- bring it before the full board today. >> any further questions on this issue? if not, why not receive -- proceed back to the appellants for 15 minutes of the presentation. >> thank you, president and members of the board. we are moving into the merits of phase. once again, wagner, on behalf of the appellants in this case, the golden gate audubon society,
while the equity, kennth master, we are here today to address the certification by the planning commission eir. our clients object to the planning committee certification on a variety of grounds. the fundamental cases for the objection presented today really goes to the heart of ceqa's basic purposes. this is set forth as the basic purposes of ceqa are to inform government decision makers and the public about the intentional significant environmental effect of proposed activities and identify the ways that the environmental damage can be reduced, avoid significant
damage to the environment by requiring changes to the projects by using mitigation measures and disclosing to the public the reasons why government agencies and prove the project in the manner that it chose if significant effects are involved. if the eir before you fails to satisfy the basic purposes of ceqa. >> the first issue that we raised on appeal is detailed in the appeal letter that has been presented to the board today. what is before the board for approval is not a project that was analyzed were disclosed in the eir. the eir by its own title is the treasure island and yerba buena island redevelopment plan
project. after the draft was circulated and even after responses to comments were submitted, on april 12 of 2011, the planning commission came forward with a memorandum notifying the planning commission that the project was no longer a redevelopment plan. instead, it was a special use district area plan not to be financed through the redevelopment law, but through the air infrastructure financing districts. none of these approvals were noticed in the eir that was circulated to the public. the changes to the project have resulted in a recommendation by staff to eliminate 400 units of affordable housing for the project in order to make up for
the projected shortfall in funding that would occur due to the city abandonment of the proposed redevelopment project. ceqa guidelines 15124 requires them to have a list of all of the permits and approvals that are being proposed. this eir does not have that. a ceqa guideline states that if the agency is proposing to use a eir for a prior project proposal but for a different project approval, the agency will start not with a memorandum at the end of the process and asking for it to be approved, it will instead start from the beginning of the ceqa process with an initial study and recirculation of the eir for the projects of that the
public can reconsider the project proposal and respond through ceqa's mandatory public comment period on a draft eir. with regards to changes that have been made, the financing system that has been proposed is potentially untested in the state of california. infrastructure financing districts have rarely been used. we submitted to the city and independent economists analysis from the san francisco state university. they have revealed -- review the new plan. there are serious concerns about the objections that have been made because of the way the infrastructure financing district's work. also, because of the update to the financial analysis that has en